Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
to do you want to vote for a tax cut for 98% of americans, i think that's where president obama will have more leverage in some of thots discussions. it's a shame we can't move beyond the gridlock. >> but dr. peterson, i have just heard speaker boehner say look at the last two years. look at the ryan budget, which, of course, in neither of the two years received a single vote by democrats. >> well, listen, like joy reid on this network has said, hopefully mr. boehner will be able to sing a different tune once the tea party caucus is more di anyone initiminished an speakership is re-established on january 3rd. my sense is going off the fiscal slope or curve or cliff is probably the best case scenario for president obama. >> professor reich, the president has offered a mix of taxes and spending cuts in his plan. mr. boehner responded with the ryan budget five minutes after saying they wanted a bipartisan solution. have they put any thought whatsoever into any of this? what have they been doing on all their days off. >> i don't think they've been doing anything but licking their wo
agree are more harmful than what obama is proposing by raising the upper two brackets. and then this party that paraded around as the big deficit hawks, the guys that wanted to control spending, the only cuts they put on the table is playing at margins, increasing retirement age from 65 to 67 and adjusting rates for social security. this hasn't presented itself as a party that wants to cut spending. on one hand you have president obama's proposal, which most agree is the responsible way of raising the debt, raising rates. and responsible cuts on entitlements and discretionary spending versus republicans who are divided against something that is a chicken hawk when it comes to the deficits, that is the boehner approach, or the more extremist position which is absolutely nothing.รง so this is an extraordinary position for the republican party to have evolved into. >> you must respond to what julian just said. >> i like julian an awful lot but i think what he said is entirely wrong. it's fascinating president obama last july, july of 2011, said we can get $1.2 trillion i
nothing to offer besides the same tax cut mantra and demonization of obama that won't work anymore. >> we all remember mr. romney's explanation for why he lost. you know, you can't beat free stuff was his excuse in a nutshell. mr. stevens was asked about those comments this morning. take a listen, bob. >> we have the governor speaking about the fact that the obama campaign paid its voters and certainly its lower income voters. that seems to me a bit sour grapes. >> i don't think that's what he was saying. they had certain groups they wanted to do well with, and they did well with. >> but where is theed a admissi from mr. romney or mr. stevens or republican that they many a nasty, mean-spirited campaign that deserved the thumping it received? >> you're not going to get that and, you know, i have met stuart. he's not a friend of mine, but you read the piece he wrote in "the washington post," you listen to what he said, you say no wonder romney make. the arguments he's making are fantasy and they're pernicious. he says crazy things like no one in washington, in the washington green room, eve
earners and spending cuts. we've had a trillion in spending cuts already, $800 billion additional in the drawdown from the war efforts in afghanistan and iraq, and then a number of spending proposals that obama put on the table in august of '11. consider that against what republicans are doing, and this shows that republicans are really chicken hawks when it comes to reducing the debt. they have a plan on tax reduction which most economists think would do far more harm than the obama plan would. secondly, they fail to specify what kind of cuts they want. remember, this is the party that's campaigned for two election cycles now on cutting government spinding, but when you ask them to identify exactly what you want to cut, you get mishmash from them. you get $100 billion in medicare savings by increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67. you get some unspecified savings from reducing social security. the only specifics if you add them up are about $300 billion or $400 billion in specific cuts, the rest are inspecific. this is the party whose fundamental premise is to cut government
. even some of the top minds in conservative circles are waving the white flag of surrender on tax cuts for the top 2%. >> so are you saying then for pr purposes, that they should give into obama on the tax rate? >> not exactly. well, yeah, i guess i am. >> i'm sorry, that was not one of the top conservative minds. that was ann coulter, but you have to and it to her. she's onto something there. a new quinnipiac poll shows 65% of americans support higher taxes on incomes over $250,000. the same survey showing the president's approval rating at a three-year high, 53%. the highest level since the body of osama bin laden was dumped in the north arabian sea. perhaps that's why senate majority leader harry reid felt confident enough to declare that until republicans move on tax rates, more spending cuts are off the table. >> the president made clear, i have tried to make very clear, until there's some movement in tax rates, we're -- i'm not talking about any other proposals, not about where there will be a cut here or a cut there. >> no. as a matter of fact, the only cuts the senate is talkin
from a position that is closer to obama's than they were at this time last year. they are now backing away from the entitlement cuts they were talking about. they haven't given any specifics on what kind of deductions and loopholes they want to get rid of, but they're leaving that for the committees on capitol hill if they can get away with it. but we see president obama getting tougher right now on what he's calling for while the republicans, if you look at the numbers, they're really not asking for as much. i think we're seeing speaker boehner getting his ducks in a row to cut a deal that is going to try to get settled before the fiscal cliff goes over. >> bill, "the washington post" today has a poll which says 53% of americans are likely to blame republicans and just 27% the president if they don't agree on a fiscal cliff. we know that after the election, 60% of people said let's raise taxes on the wealthiest. what more does john boehner need? >> i don't understand the republicans' thinking on this. i really don't. this is power politics. they don't have the leverage in this situat
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)